Category Archives: New York

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, et. al. v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et. al.

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 1:24-cv-6740 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 5, 2024)

The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center for Constitutional Rights, and an individual, L.B., filed a complaint on September 5, 2024, after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not comply with their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The plaintiffs requested documents under FOIA regarding HHS’s, CBP’s, ICE’s, and DHS’s radiograph practices and policies in June 2024. Specifically, plaintiffs are seeking information about defendants solely relying on dental radiographs to determine the age of unaccompanied minor children. This practice is alleged to be a violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which requires defendants to rely on more than radiographs to determine the age of children. This determination is significant because using only the radiographs can lead to incorrect determinations of children as adults and result in their placement in adult immigrant detention centers. Placing the children in adult facilities deprives them of the additional benefits children receive in custody, such as access to education, counseling, and less restrictive settings.

After a telephone conference on May 27, 2025, the court ordered defendants to file a letter brief and declaration addressing the processing schedule for the requested records of both CBP and HHS, as well as briefing on addressing the legality of using a reduction in force at HHS (including terminations and/or placements on administrative leave) as a basis for delaying the processing and production of records pursuant to FOIA. As of August 2025, the parties continue to file joint status reports and production is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights ǀ Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Laura Belous (lbelous@firrp.org) | Rocio Castaneda (rcastaneda@firrp.org)

Press:

ACLU v. ICE

Posted on by

ACLU v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-07444 (S.D.NY., filed Oct. 2, 2024)

The ACLU filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on October 2, 2024, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) after the departments failed to produce requested documents by the deadline under FOIA (20 working days). The ACLU is requesting documents related to detention management and care as well as deportation practices. Specifically, the ACLU requested CBP’s documents related to the transportation of individuals between detention centers and airports during deportation proceedings, including the transportation of unaccompanied minors; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) records of detention facility bed availability and commercial lodging practices; DHS’s policies between CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and any legal memoranda related to the “mass influx” provision, 8 U.S.C. section 1103(a)(10), from DHS and DOJ. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 12, 2024, and as of September 2025 continue to file status reports with the court while production in response to the initial FOIA requests is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Goodwin Procter LLP ǀ ACLU

Contact: Kyle Virgien | kvirgien@aclu.org

Skylight Engagement and AIC v. DHS and CBP

Posted on by

Skylight Engagement, Inc. and American Immigration Council v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:21-cv-00922 (E.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 19, 2021)

Skylight Engagement, a nonprofit human rights media organization, and the American Immigration Council filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on February 19, 2021, seeking records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding their actions at and around a humanitarian aid station near Arivaca, Arizona in 2017 and 2020.

The records sought include information on three aggressive raids conducted by CBP on the aid station, located about 11 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border and intended to provide aid to migrants who have crossed the border and are at risk due to the extremely hot and dry climate. The aid station was organized and operated by No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a humanitarian organization that supplies medical care, food, and water to migrants.

CBP raided the Arivaca aid station on June 15, 2017, July 31, 2020, and again on October 5, 2020. During these raids, CBP interrogated, detained, and arrested individuals at the aid station in an aggressive manner. Plaintiffs filed an administrative FOIA request on October 14, 2020, seeking CBP records regarding the raids, but did not receive responsive records. In particular, the request sought video footage, photographs, or other media that CBP recorded documenting their actions during the raids, as well as communication and correspondence regarding the raids, including records related to search warrants.

On May 19, 2023, the parties stipulated to dismiss the suit after Defendants released records requested by Plaintiffs. The case was dismissed on June 5, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel:

Raul Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Access Now v. CBP

Posted on by

Access Now v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:24-cv-03979 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 23, 2024)

A digital rights advocacy organization—Access Now—and the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for failing to produce records related to personal data the agency collects via its CBP One app.

According to an internal CBP One privacy impact assessment cited by the lawsuit, the app can collect biographical information, images, and geolocation. In February 2024, CBP disclosed on the Federal Register that the app also will begin gathering biometric information from nonimmigrants leaving the country, who will now be required to provide photos with geolocation data to prove they have left the United States.

The complaint alleges that CBP One can use the data it gathers for automated decision making, profiling, and registering people on the move. The lawsuit seeks records documenting how the app functions and the number of people in the Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran governments who access CBP One to obtain data about migrants.

Access Now is an international organization that defends and extends the digital rights of people and communities at risk around the world. Access Now does not provide legal advice to migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and other people on the move.

CBP filed its answer on August 2, 2024. On October 10, 2024, Access Now issued a press release that CBP has released 2,912 pages of documents in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request, and is reviewing the documents to assess adequate compliance.

Documents:

Counsel: Mason A. Kortz ǀ Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic

Contact: Access Now ǀ equipolac@accessnow.org

Press:

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Borowski v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00257 (W.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 22, 2023)

Matthew Borowski is an immigration attorney and U.S. citizen who resides in Canada but manages an immigration law firm in Buffalo, New York. As such, he routinely commutes across the U.S./Canadian border for work. He has maintained a NEXUS card since 2012. NEXUS is a trusted traveler program that permits faster travel across the border.

Mr. Borowski and his family have had several encounters with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers while traveling across the border. In one incident, a CBP officer assaulted Mr. Borowski’s wife and took the families’ NEXUS cards. CBP ultimately returned the NEXUS cards. Mr. Borowski and his wife sued the assaulting CBP officer, who continued to harass the family while the lawsuit was pending. In 2017, Mr. Borowski successfully renewed his NEXUS card.

During the Trump administration, Mr. Borowski was outspoken about his opposition to new immigration policies and engaged in a range of activity to express his views, including a protest in immigration court. Mr. Borowksi continued to travel back and forth across the U.S./Canadian border, and though he was routinely sent to secondary inspection for no apparent reason, he was always permitted to continue his travel. In December 2022, CBP declined his request to renew his NEXUS card without explanation. A NEXUS Supervisor indicated to Mr. Borowski that prior incidents had led to the denial.

Mr. Borowski submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking the reason for the denial. CBP has yet to respond. On March 22, 2023, Mr. Borowski filed suit alleging that the denial of his request to renew his NEXUS card was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenging the failure to respond to his FOIA request. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss, and Mr. Borowski filed an amended complaint on June 20, 2023. Defendant CBP filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2023, and plaintiff filed his response August 21, 2023.  Defendant submitted a motion for partial summary judgment on October 16, 2023, arguing that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that CBP improperly withheld responsive documents because information was properly withheld under the FOIA statute.

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part on February 21, 2024, dismissing Mr. Borowski’s FTCA and constitutional claims without prejudice but denying the motion to dismiss as to his APA claim. Defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 5, 2024. On May 10, 2024, the court denied Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that CBP had not adequately addressed the deficiencies Plaintiff identified in its production, nor adequately justifying the information it had withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions. On July 9, 2024, Defendant CBP filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that it had run a new search for documents and all withheld documents were properly done so pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions. Briefing is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Matthew Borowski

Contact: Matthew Borowski | (716) 330-1503

Press:

Daniel Telvock, NEXUS pass dispute pits attorney vs. U.S. Customs, WIVB4, Aug. 3, 2023.

NYLAG v. DHS

Posted on by

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:22-cv-05928 (S.D.N.Y., filed Jul. 12, 2022)

New York Legal Assistance Group, Inc. (NYLAG), a not-for-profit civil legal services organization in New York, New York, filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) failed to produce responsive records to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to the deployment of federal law enforcement personnel in New York City during protests related to the killing of George Floyd in 2020.

In June 2020, at a New York City protest against police brutality, a protestor was violently arrested on the Upper West Side by an officer identified as an agent for ICE or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). After the identification of the officer, organizations like NYLAG raised concerns questioning the authority of the federal government to deploy federal agents to monitor local protests and surveil immigrant protestors.

NYLAG submitted an administrative FOIA request on September 29, 2020, requesting records from May 25, 2020, through the date of filing the request. Following their administrative request, NYLAG received some communications from DHS, ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Secret Service (USSS), and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), indicating that responsive records existed and were identified. However, after nearly two years, the agencies failed to produce to NYLAG any of the documents they identified as responsive to the FOIA request, prompting NYLAG to file suit in July 2022. On September 16, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. 

Defendants’ production of documents responsive to the FOIA request is ongoing, and they continue to meet and confer with NYLAG to narrow NYLAG’s scope of objections to the production.

Counsel: New York Legal Assistance Group | Cooley LLP

Contact: Danielle Tarantolo | NYLAG | (212) 613-5000
Marc Suskin | Cooley LLP | (212) 479-6000

Related Links: https://nylag.org/nylagvdhs/

FOIA: Black Alliance for Just Immigration et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection

Posted on by

FOIA: Black Alliance for Just Immigration et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-05198 (E.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 28, 2020)

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minnesota police officers, triggering mass protests in cities across the United States calling for racial justice and police reform. These protests were met with heightened police presence as local law enforcement agencies throughout the country deployed additional officers to protests and gatherings. In early June 2020, media outlets began reporting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and aerial surveillance, along with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and federal agency personnel, had been deployed to the protests. A leaked CBP document later revealed that requests from law enforcement agencies across the country resulted in 326.5 hours of federal aviation assets deployed and 2,174 agency personnel.

After then-President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13933, “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statutes and Combating Recent Criminal Violence,” DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) began taking steps to implement the directive, including by creating roving teams of federal law enforcement officers to disperse to protests. These deployments only served to exacerbate tensions and violence, drawing criticism from elected officials – especially given CBP’s track record of abusive policing tactics and use of excessive force.

Following these deployments, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records of requests for assistance to CBP by other entities regarding the deployment of CBP personnel to U.S. cities; policies, protocols, and directives outlining CBP’s legal authority to police and surveil protests; communications sent or received by CBP personnel relating to the deployments; and data regarding the total number of CBP personnel deployed, individuals apprehended or arrested by CBP, and the statutory basis for CBP’s enforcement action.

When CBP failed to respond to the request, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction ordering Defendant to conduct a search for responsive records and timely produce those records to Plaintiffs, as well as a declaration that Defendant’s conduct violated the FOIA. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed its answer. Defendant produced responsive records and agreed to settle for attorney fees and costs in the amount of $37,500. On January 10, 2023, the case was dismissed pursuant to a stipulated dismissal.

Documents:
● FOIA Request
● Complaint
● Answer

Counsel: Immigrant Legal Defense; American Immigration Council; ACLU Foundation of Texas

Contact:
Claudia Valenzuela | Immigrant Legal Defense | claudia@ild.org
Shaw Drake | ACLU Foundation of Texas |

Press:
● U.S. Watched George Floyd Protests in 15 Cities Using Aerial Surveillance

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

Posted on by

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., No. 1:21-cv-05016-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 8, 2021)

Plaintiff Akram Djumaev, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, commenced this action against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mr. Djumaev is a resident of Chicago and a citizen of Uzbekistan who has been a lawful permanent resident since 2013. In January 2016, he traveled to Uzbekistan for the purpose of visiting family and getting engaged. After going through the security checkpoint at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, four law enforcement agents approached him and interrogated him, specifically asking whether he knew anyone in Turkey, Syria, or Afghanistan. Without consent or warrant, the agents then searched and confiscated his smartphone without providing any reason for doing so. After an hour of questioning, Mr. Djumaev was allowed to board the plane to Uzbekistan. However, the agents did not return his smartphone to him. In fact, to date, they still have not done so.

When Mr. Djumaev attempted to return home to the United States in March 2016, the airline attendant at the airport informed him that he would not be able to board—presumably because he had been placed on the U.S. government’s “No Fly List.” That same day, Mr. Djumaev contacted the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and filed a Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) complaint with DHS shortly afterward.

Two months later, Mr. Djumaev was instructed to visit the embassy for an interview. When he arrived, he was taken to a windowless room and interrogated by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department agents. The agents allegedly stated that Mr. Djumaev was a “threat to the U.S.” without any explanation or justification for that claim. They also suggested—again, without providing any basis—that they knew he had terrorist affiliations and had been involved in criminal activity. The agents repeatedly coerced Mr. Djumaev to admit that he was guilty and threatened that he would be arrested and imprisoned upon returning to the United States. After about two hours of interrogation, the agents told him that he had only two choices: either return to the United States. and be imprisoned, or agree to sign a form stating that he would not return to the United States. The agents handed him a pre-filled Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. Although Mr. Djumaev had no desire whatsoever to relinquish his LPR status, he signed the form, believing that he had no other choice. During this process, the agents never informed Mr. Djumaev of his rights.

After that incident, Mr. Djumaev attempted twice to return to the United States, but he was denied boarding each time. Although LPRs placed on the No Fly List are eligible for a one-time waiver to return to the United States, the embassy has refused to issue such a waiver to Mr. Djumaev. Later, Mr. Djumaev retained counsel and challenged the validity of the I-407, but the government has not provided any response. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Djumaev has been unable to return to the United States for over five years and has suffered significant financial and emotional harms.

Mr. Djumaev’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by placing him on the No Fly List without adequate notice or opportunity to challenge the decision, as well as by coercing him to abandon his LPR status. The complaint further asserts that Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the INA (depriving him of LPR status and excluding him from the United States without charge or a removal hearing) and the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure of his smartphone and its private contents). Finally, Mr. Djumaev claims that Defendants’ actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law,” in violation of the APA. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and requests, among other things, that the district court issue an order voiding the improper I-407 form and directing Defendants to restore his LPR status. The parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to dismiss the case on January 24, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel: Jamila Marjani Hall & Sharnell S. Simon | Jones Day, Atlanta
Ramzi Kassem & Naz Ahmad | Main Street Legal Services, Inc.

Guan v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Guan, et al., v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06570 (E.D.N.Y., filed Nov. 20, 2019)

In Guan v. Wolf, five journalists were tracked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other government agencies, and then detained, and interrogated by CBP officials when attempting to re-enter the United States. In response to this unprecedented coordinated attack on the freedom of the press, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of their First Amendment rights on November 20, 2019.

Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler are all U.S. citizen professional photojournalists. Between November 2018 and January 2019, they separately traveled to Mexico to document people traveling north from Central America by caravan in an attempt to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Border patrol agents referred each journalist to secondary inspection on their return to the United States and questioned them about their work as photojournalists, including their coverage of the caravan, their observations of conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border, and their knowledge of the identities of certain individuals. This questioning focused on what each journalist had observed in Mexico in the course of working as a journalist, and did not relate to any permissible immigration or customs purpose. A secret government database leaked to NBC San Diego in March 2019 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had engaged in wide-ranging intelligence collection targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists—including these five journalists—working on issues related to the October 2018 migrant caravan and conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The five journalists filed this action alleging that CBP’s questioning aimed at uncovering their sources of information and their observations as journalists was unconstitutional. They seek a declaratory judgment that such conduct violated the First Amendment. The journalists further seek an injunction requiring the government to expunge any records it retained regarding the unlawful questioning and to inform the journalists whether those records have been disclosed to other agencies, governments, or individuals. On August 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs have opposed. On March 30, 2021, the District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged infringement of their First Amendment rights. The case is now in discovery.

Counsel: ACLU; NYCLU; ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties; Covington & Burling LLP

Contact:  Scarlet Kim | ACLU | scarletk@aclu.org

Clear, et al. v. CBP

Posted on by

Clear, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:19-cv-07079 (E.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 18, 2019)

The American Civil Liberties Union and CUNY Law School CLEAR Project filed a FOIA lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2019 over its Tactical Terrorism Response Teams (TTRT), which plaintiffs argue are discriminatory against individuals from the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that CBP is deploying secret teams across at least 46 airports and other U.S. ports of entry which target, detain, and interrogate innocent travelers. Frequently TTRT officers request that travelers unlock their electronic devices and subject them to search. While TTRTs operate largely in secret, CBP has publicly admitted the teams are explicitly targeting individuals who are not on any government watchlist and whom the government has never identified as posing a security risk. Former CBP Commissioner and form acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, has indicated TTRT officers may rely on their “instincts” or hunches to target travelers.

On February 21, 2021, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims. The motions have been fully briefed and oral argument was held on April 26, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Court indicated that it would partially grant and partially deny each party’s summary judgment motion. A written order was published on November 2, 2022, in which the court directed CBP to release all non-exempt and segregable information requested by Plaintiffs.

Additionally, the ACLU of Northern California has filed an administrative complaint on behalf of an individual who was detained and interrogated by a TTRT.

CBP’s Public Statements about TTRTs:

Press:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union

Contact: Scarlet Kim | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | ScarletK@aclu.org